I don't like the Wild West format that our voting structure has. When you have 15 and 16 year olds who have lost more debates than they have won judging your argument it can seem unhelpful. Does anyone else think we should limit who can and can't vote to a higher degree? Does it really make sense that high school kids with a record of 5-14 should be able to provide an opinion with the same weight as a college grad who is 10-1, or judge a debate between two post-grads with positive records?

We don't have a plethora of college kids with that much time on their hands to vote on every debate on the site. Also college-aged kids aren't inherently more intelligent.

Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos

At 5/30/2011 3:50:10 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:Maybe just limit it a little to restrict those who are losing debaters with a significant number of debates under their belt from voting?

So say someone does 3 debates and wins them all, gains voting privs, votes on 100s of debates legitimately, then loses the next 30 debates.

So what happens to their legitimate votes on 100s of debates? The mods manually remove them all?

This is circular logic because one user's vote removal can affect another users win ratio which can affect their votes and sub sequentially another persons win ratio so that it could be an infinite loop where all members end with ties and all votes are removed.

Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos

At 5/30/2011 3:50:10 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:Maybe just limit it a little to restrict those who are losing debaters with a significant number of debates under their belt from voting?

So say someone does 3 debates and wins them all, gains voting privs, votes on 100s of debates legitimately, then loses the next 30 debates.

So what happens to their legitimate votes on 100s of debates? The mods manually remove them all?

This is circular logic because one user's vote removal can affect another users win ratio which can affect their votes and sub sequentially another persons win ratio so that it could be an infinite loop where all members end with ties and all votes are removed.

Agree with askbob! I have voted to counter bomb, but the rest are voted after reading the debate and making a fair assumption. In fact, in my votes there are times where I agree with the opponent I vote against because he lost the debate.

1) Whatever has contradictory attributes does not exist.
2) The Biblical God has contradictory attributes.
3) Therefore, the Biblical God does not exist

At 5/30/2011 3:50:10 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:Maybe just limit it a little to restrict those who are losing debaters with a significant number of debates under their belt from voting?

So say someone does 3 debates and wins them all, gains voting privs, votes on 100s of debates legitimately, then loses the next 30 debates.

So what happens to their legitimate votes on 100s of debates? The mods manually remove them all?

This is circular logic because one user's vote removal can affect another users win ratio which can affect their votes and sub sequentially another persons win ratio so that it could be an infinite loop where all members end with ties and all votes are removed.

There would be no vote deletion, there would simply be a moratorium on voting once the 3-0 guy gets to 3-4.

At 5/30/2011 3:50:10 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:Maybe just limit it a little to restrict those who are losing debaters with a significant number of debates under their belt from voting?

So say someone does 3 debates and wins them all, gains voting privs, votes on 100s of debates legitimately, then loses the next 30 debates.

So what happens to their legitimate votes on 100s of debates? The mods manually remove them all?

This is circular logic because one user's vote removal can affect another users win ratio which can affect their votes and sub sequentially another persons win ratio so that it could be an infinite loop where all members end with ties and all votes are removed.

Agree with askbob! I have voted to counter bomb, but the rest are voted after reading the debate and making a fair assumption. In fact, in my votes there are times where I agree with the opponent I vote against because he lost the debate.

Sorry, but how can you judge debates accurately if you can't argue your own debates effectively? You're 7-17.

At 5/30/2011 3:58:42 PM, kohai wrote:Agree with askbob! I have voted to counter bomb, but the rest are voted after reading the debate and making a fair assumption. In fact, in my votes there are times where I agree with the opponent I vote against because he lost the debate.

Sorry, but how can you judge debates accurately if you can't argue your own debates effectively? You're 7-17.

Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos

Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos

At 5/30/2011 3:50:10 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:Maybe just limit it a little to restrict those who are losing debaters with a significant number of debates under their belt from voting?

So say someone does 3 debates and wins them all, gains voting privs, votes on 100s of debates legitimately, then loses the next 30 debates.

So what happens to their legitimate votes on 100s of debates? The mods manually remove them all?

This is circular logic because one user's vote removal can affect another users win ratio which can affect their votes and sub sequentially another persons win ratio so that it could be an infinite loop where all members end with ties and all votes are removed.

Agree with askbob! I have voted to counter bomb, but the rest are voted after reading the debate and making a fair assumption. In fact, in my votes there are times where I agree with the opponent I vote against because he lost the debate.

Sorry, but how can you judge debates accurately if you can't argue your own debates effectively? You're 7-17.

That would only discourage people from debating if they thought they would have their voting ability removed if they began losing too many debates.

Currently we need to increase our volume of legitimate votes from people who read the whole debate before we can begin even considering laying restrictions down. Honestly that won't happen for quite some time if it ever does.

Good debaters on this site aren't known for being good debaters because of their win ratio but by who they debate and by their arguments in the debate.

The intelligent debaters know their equals.

Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos

At 5/30/2011 3:50:10 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:Maybe just limit it a little to restrict those who are losing debaters with a significant number of debates under their belt from voting?

So say someone does 3 debates and wins them all, gains voting privs, votes on 100s of debates legitimately, then loses the next 30 debates.

So what happens to their legitimate votes on 100s of debates? The mods manually remove them all?

This is circular logic because one user's vote removal can affect another users win ratio which can affect their votes and sub sequentially another persons win ratio so that it could be an infinite loop where all members end with ties and all votes are removed.

Agree with askbob! I have voted to counter bomb, but the rest are voted after reading the debate and making a fair assumption. In fact, in my votes there are times where I agree with the opponent I vote against because he lost the debate.

Sorry, but how can you judge debates accurately if you can't argue your own debates effectively? You're 7-17.

That would only discourage people from debating if they thought they would have their voting ability removed if they began losing too many debates.

another good point

Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos

At 5/30/2011 4:08:47 PM, askbob wrote:Currently we need to increase our volume of legitimate votes from people who read the whole debate before we can begin even considering laying restrictions down. Honestly that won't happen for quite some time if it ever does.

Good debaters on this site aren't known for being good debaters because of their win ratio but by who they debate and by their arguments in the debate.

The intelligent debaters know their equals.

Exactly. Freeman is one of the best debaters but his win ratio is like 60%.

At 5/30/2011 3:58:42 PM, kohai wrote:Agree with askbob! I have voted to counter bomb, but the rest are voted after reading the debate and making a fair assumption. In fact, in my votes there are times where I agree with the opponent I vote against because he lost the debate.

Sorry, but how can you judge debates accurately if you can't argue your own debates effectively? You're 7-17.

The more restrictions you try to put in place the worse it will get. Not only is votebombing still a problem but now real spam debates are a problem because people want to hurry up and gets voting privileges.

Open voting tab hurt voting, but it broke up voting blocs that were smothering debates.

You can't legislate good behavior. If any one really wants to control votingbombing they will have to get of their tales and start voting. It's really simple.

At 5/30/2011 4:06:48 PM, askbob wrote:Also his losses are against fairly decent debaters.

Exactly. I like debating people with more experience than I do. If I dbated OMGJustinBiebr, I'd win...most likely.

Yeah, if people who were 2-14 voted on it.

Hmm...are ya challenging me?

I'm certainly not afraid to debate you. It seems entirely possible either of us could win depending on who voted.

Then prove it by accepting my challenge.

Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos

Does it really make sense that high school kids with a record of 5-14 should be able to provide an opinion with the same weight as a college grad who is 10-1, or judge a debate between two post-grads with positive records?

Part of debate is speaking to your audience, but there is nothing stopping you from putting voting rules in your debate OP. Unless you get hung up on the leader board then the open vote is then is irrelevant.

At 5/30/2011 4:18:31 PM, jharry wrote:The more restrictions you try to put in place the worse it will get. Not only is votebombing still a problem but now real spam debates are a problem because people want to hurry up and gets voting privileges.

Good point. It should be changed from a minimum debate requirement to a minimum waiting period requirement...a month would be good I think.

At 5/30/2011 4:18:31 PM, jharry wrote:The more restrictions you try to put in place the worse it will get. Not only is votebombing still a problem but now real spam debates are a problem because people want to hurry up and gets voting privileges.

Good point. It should be changed from a minimum debate requirement to a minimum waiting period requirement...a month would be good I think.

I thinking waiting periods done with specific amounts of time should be done away with. Change it so once a certain amount of votes have been cast, then it ends.

At 5/30/2011 4:18:31 PM, jharry wrote:The more restrictions you try to put in place the worse it will get. Not only is votebombing still a problem but now real spam debates are a problem because people want to hurry up and gets voting privileges.

Good point. It should be changed from a minimum debate requirement to a minimum waiting period requirement...a month would be good I think.

Restrictions won't help anything, good suggestion though. It will help with the spam debates.

But to be honest no restriction would solve the problem. Wait a month and then votebomb away. It wouldnt have slowed me down at all. But that was a whole different animal. The votebombing we see today is honestly pety and too ridicules to even mention.

Elo and a debate tournament would remidy the issue I think.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but it seems most votebombing happens when someone debates a new member. That was where I got most of my support anyway. Some new member would start a debate, they would throw up a weak resolution and get sniped with semantics or some other unsightly tactic. They would be pissed their hard work (subjective yes) and look for a way to correct the injustice.

I know the good debaters depend on noob sniping for thier win ratios but it is really bad for the sight. Put elo on place and most will lose interest in noob sniping. They can debate each other until they either give up or get better. That will happen eiher way.

The tournament needs to be highlighted up front when you show up on the site. For one it will attract good debaters and it may make a spammer think twice. Maybe. If you have a bunch of spam debates when you show up the good ones may not bother and the trolls/spammers will see a fertile field.

This has to be address for the bottom up, attacking the spammers and trolls is simply counterproductive.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but it seems most votebombing happens when someone debates a new member.

The vote bombing either happens when you vote against someone and they bomb you out of spite or you say something on the forum and they vote bomb you out of spite. In either case if you can lose a debate because of one vote bomb then you really barely won it anyway.

Does no one else see the irony in championing college-age kids or post-grads as the only people competent enough to vote when your profile claims that you're 14 years old? I just found that to be sort of funny.